Animals vs humans round 2

(1003 Posts)
livingzuid Sat 02-Nov-13 20:00:34

I was enjoying our previous debate started by Fifi. Not sure if we were done!

AIBU to think if faced with choosing a pet over a human (even if a stranger), you should choose the human?

The idea was brought up in another thread and put in life or death situation. Building on fire contains your pet and a stranger. You could only save one, who would it be?

I had a dog, Ralph, I cried my heart out when he died 3 years ago. The only dog I wasn't scared of! But I can't imagine leaving a person to die instead, no matter how my heart would break.

CatOfTheDay Sun 03-Nov-13 15:53:56

I love the furry little fuckers. I'd save my cat over MYSELF.

Maryz Sun 03-Nov-13 15:55:24

That's ok to save them over yourself. Bonkers, but fine.

To save them over a person isn't.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 15:55:36

'It's totally bizarre that someone with such extreme views can be so adamant that they're right'

I think you'll find people with extreme views are almost always adamant they're right. It's the middle-ground that can be swayed.

Binkybix Sun 03-Nov-13 15:55:38

I'm sickened by your views on this urgent

Binkybix Sun 03-Nov-13 15:57:55

How do you think your kids are going to feel when the dog dies of natural causes, if they're that attached to it that you'd allow another child to die to prevent that pain?

treaclesoda Sun 03-Nov-13 15:58:27

Right, so to save your own kids a limited amount of grief, you'd be happy to cause someone else's family a lifetime of grief.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:00:15

Maryz I said 'to the happiness of my children and the life of my family' on its own the happiness of my kids would not come before the life of another; however I would put saving a family member over saving someone else's child, and if that keeps my kids from grieving then it just makes the decision even easier.

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 16:00:30

My dog certainly has helped me and kept me company through bad times. She isn't really aware of that fact though. I think the problem is people start to find it difficult to separate the reality of what goes goes through a dog's mind, from the human type emotions and qualities they have conferred upon it themselves.

Understandable, and probably harmless enough day in day out, but certain situations should prompt you to break that illusion, and I'd say if that can't be done, then that is not healthy.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:01:36

'The dog savers think animal life equal to human, then? If so, this must mean they are all vegetarian/vegan?'

Or they eat humans? wink

'And they don't use any products (medical, cosmetic) tested on animals'

By the same logic; none of the human savers use or consume anything that has involved the exploitation of humans then?

Binkybix Sun 03-Nov-13 16:05:34

The dog is not an equivalent family member in the way you are saying it is unless you would prioritise saving it as highly as you would your DCs, partner etc. that is why other people's children are more important than your dog, even using your logic.

If you would prioritise your dog as highly as your DC then your logic is valid, but shocking.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:06:15

Human beings are selfish by nature, we always put ourselves before others. Even if we were to risk our lives to save family, which I am sure we would all do, we would be doing it because we love them and we could not live with ourselves otherwise. We comfort others because we do not like to see them upset. You would save a person because that would hurt you less. Some of us would save our pets because that would hurt us less.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:06:30

I think this discussion has moved away from the original scenario now. The original question was about what you'd do in the heat of the moment, with half a second to choose. Not about what you'd do given two days to explore all the possible ramifications of your decision.

No-one with half a second, in a burning building, is going to way-up which 'save' would cause the least grief or cause grief for the fewest people.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:08:26

I would prioritise my DCs first, because I have a stronger bond with them. Aftre them would come my sister, then my parents, then my dog, then anyone else.

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 16:08:53

Exactly Leeds.
So the instinctive reaction would be to save a human life.

SharpLily Sun 03-Nov-13 16:09:25

This thread is sapping my will to live. Leave me, let the fire take me! I'm ready to go - just make sure you save my dog!

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:09:30

'The dog is not an equivalent family member in the way you are saying it is unless you would prioritise saving it as highly as you would your DCs, partner etc. that is why other people's children are more important than your dog, even using your logic'

That's not correct. The logic is valid. 'My family over yours' is the logic, even if the dog is lowest in the family it trumps ANY member of someone else's family. Not my view necessarily, but the logic is valid.

pianodoodle Sun 03-Nov-13 16:10:25

one with half a second, in a burning building, is going to way-up which 'save' would cause the least grief or cause grief for the fewest people.

No one with half a brain would need to.

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:10:56

'Exactly Leeds.
So the instinctive reaction would be to save a human life.'

Well obviously not for many! If it was we wouldn't be on thread 2 would we?!

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:11:30

Thanks OutragedFromLeeds that's exactly my logic.

everlong that might be your instinct but it certainly isn't mine.

trish5000 Sun 03-Nov-13 16:12:12

I think that there are 3 seperate groups of animal savers here.

1. The ones who readily admit that they are selfish. They know they are selfish, so it is quite easy to then see that they are going to choose their pet who they love, over a stranger that they feel no connection to and who they think doesnt love them. They are putting themselves and their pets who they consider to be a proper family member and some human family members above the outside world.

2. The people who would want their pet saved, before themselves. Because they do not value themselves, so are not going to necessarily value a stranger either.

3.Those who would save a child, every child, but not an adult.

I have reconciled myself to 1. and 2. Totally disagree with them, and would hope in time that they would change their minds.
It is group 3 that I cant quite get. Every adult used to be a child. I dont get how a child that has grown up then becomes worthless or certainly worth less than a pet.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:12:16

pianodoodle do we really need to go back to the insults?

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:12:33

'No one with half a brain would need to'

40% without half a brain? I think you need to look for another cause than 'the animal savers are mentally impaired'. The numbers don't stack up.

everlong Sun 03-Nov-13 16:12:54

Ok for the decent moral sort then.

UrgentNews Sun 03-Nov-13 16:13:46

I think those groups are perfectly accurate trish5000 Group 1 and proud!

OutragedFromLeeds Sun 03-Nov-13 16:14:29

'Ok for the decent moral sort then'

40% not the decent, moral sort? I'm not sure the numbers support that theory either. I think you need to try harder.

This thread is not accepting new messages.